Results [16]
  • We have been asked... Can a Local Authority name a school on an EHCP without the agreement of the child’s parents, and ignore the parent’s ...

    ... requested school completely? The LA is claiming the family will have to go to appeal to secure their preferred school.

    To provide some additional context, the parent has provided the LA with a list of schools they wish for the LA to consult with. It is not clear what type/s of school the parent has listed.

    The LA have responded to say they will be listing their own schools for consultation. It is not clear if this is in addition to or instead of the schools the parent listed. The LA re relying on paragraph 9.84 of the SEND COP, which concerns non-maintained / independent education providers.

    The parent has been told by the LA:
    1. You have the right to list the schools that you want for the consultation process
    2. During this consultation process of 15 days, we are going to consult our schools in the borough which are not the ones you have listed because of paragraph 9.84
    3. If our schools say yes to accepting your child or there are no spaces, we can go over the limit from 15 to 17, or even if it’s not the best school for your child as long as the setting can meet your child’s needs we will consult them, your permission is not required at this stage
    4. We will take this to panel and present our schools, you can appeal after we have listed a school for your child

    Is the LA correct? Can you explain the law around the right to name a parental preference and the consultation process, as found in sections 33 and 39 CFA 2014, and from section 9.78 – 9.84 SEND COP?

    SEND Kids
    Support SEND Kids

    23 Feb 2023

    Watched by 4
  • Please explain public task as lawfulness for data processing in context of EHCPs that a ) LAs and b) Schools rely upon? I believe the public task ...

    ... of the LA is to have processes in place for dealing with EHCPs i.e. NHS commissioning agreements, assessment processes etc. But PUBLIC TASK does not mean that sensitive specific individual data can openly/ without parental or child consent be processed with whom the LA deems appropriate ie. school consultations or third parties.This would need to be agreed. PUBLIC TASK in terms of EHCP/SENDIST means that processes are in place.

    LAs quote public task as lawfulness to share and obtain your individual data with third parties without your knowledge in EHCPNA and SENDIST. I don't agree and no one can explain this to me in simple SENDIST/ Education terms. Please can some one explain this as I believe LAs and schools are misquoting to obtain and share data strategically in sendist to blindsight parents

    MM AP

    06 Feb 2023

    Watched by 2
  • We have just been rejected for the second time for a PIP application for my 31-year old adult son who has recently been diagnosed with Severe Autism ...

    ... level 2 'requiring substantial support'. We are appealing, so now it goes to HM Courts & Tribunal Service. I am feeling completely overwhelmed and out-of-my-depth, and as his Mum I am aware I have no legal experience or expertise, and we are only allowed one hearing. Is anyone able to offer me any legal advice and/or support?

    Rachel Riley
    Mother of autistic adult son

    06 Dec 2021

    Watched by 4
  • My daughter is in mainstream with an EHCP of 32.5. I want her moved into a primary specialist setting. She’s now yr 5. Process was delayed by 2 ...

    ... years due to pandemic. Have been turned down. LA also in email trying to deter me from naming a specialist secondary on her AR which is next week. Despite EP has stated ‘she needs a differentiated curriculum’ and to be ‘educated with like-minded peers’ . And that info appearing on EHCP draft.

    The reasons LA gave were vague and non specific. School is full, levels too high apparently , (even though only emerging y3 with full support) and would impact on efficient education of others. (Found case law on IPSEA)
    Current School support the move.
    Feel that LA acting unlawfully and incompetent re timelines.. so was told I could go to AR with only a working document not a proper draft - I’ve challenged that and working doc has been relabelled and sent as a draft with now obsolete info as per EP report.

    I will exercise my daughter’s right of appeal, but is it only learning levels that are ever considered at tribunals? she has a complex range of medical, soc communication and physical disabilities as well as being at pre key stage levels.

    Is there anything in the Noddy Guide specific to this?

    Also can I name out of county as an alternative?

    Watched by 8
  • LA consulted a School X- named section I placement, LA witness. Apologies lots of unanswered questions .... X withheld its communication documents ...

    ... with LA on grounds of Legal Privilege. It refused to share its communication in SARs with LA on this basis. It refused to provide a table of what records were being held as Legal Privilege. I complained , DPO stated go to ICO. ICO state that accept that information they hold except information which is covered by the legal privilege exemption. This cannot be true because LA INHOUSE SOLICITORS UNREGISTERED WITH SRA for litigation cannot advise outside third parties with advise. But this is being misunderstood by ICO. It appears that because sch sought advise from non school solicitors in other words a "a solicitor" it is being sold to ico as legal advise. ICO have not not any due diligence to review these documents, not ordered a record of the data to be confirmed as alleged legal privilege hence no disclosure of dates of documents, parties on documents. type of documents etc needs to be disclosed. Sch DPO states exemption covers personal information involved in obtaining legal advice from LA inhouse solicitors. It doesn’t have to be connected to legal proceedings. HOw can LA give advise in SENDIST to witnesses- ICO have not even confirmed DPO dates of this correspondence. I have no other connection to school X other than it being the LA named school witness.

    Allegedly the admission minutes with the LA monthly resource unit don't exist! Is this not education data, is this correct ?

    Then as we were not students (for purposes of the SAR request at the time) at the LA named school witness- the DPO of school states that the education ICO date test does not apply??? Please can some one explain this position as I believe whilst not a pupil, it clearly forms education opinions at the time hence does form our personal data- how do I argue this as evidently wrong.

    ICO state that draft minutes and data exchange verbal made with LA on our matter is deleted and not entitled. This is unreasonable because the DPO forced me to ICO knowing that it would take 6 months ti respond. I wrote stating I dispute their position and all data to be reserved until ico investigation. Clearly this is a stalling and tactical conduct of DPO- how can education data for admission for a named witness be deleted ? How do I address that this is not transparent and inaccurate data processing adopted to conceal and or restrict my data rights and obtaining evidence of LA interfering with sendist process by prohibiting my data rights to date.

    DPO and ICO state that the school did not need my consent to forward my emails or information about you or your daughter to LA (respondent) as the legal reason (lawful basis) was Public task. How can a school be public body hence undertake public task? Please can some explain as I believe this is not appropriate understanding.

    The sch has public task to comply with 15 day LA sch consultation (even though parents permission not sought and we had not transparency of whom LA was consulting as parents are allegedly not involved) but that does not allow them to continue to share data including FOIs and emails I sent when preparing for sendist appeal. Have I as a parent misunderstood the schools public task, please can someone correct me.

    From a

    Thanks to all for reading and working their way through my frustrated communication to offer support , experience and put me on the correct pathway to being able to advocate properly on this matter.

    MM AP

    06 Feb 2023

  • Why does the NODDY GUIDE, not provide case law to reference for data restrictions relied upon by LAs especially during SENDIST? LA named Witnesses ...

    ... Communication
    LAs allege that their communication with their named witnesses is "legal and litigation privilege"-, SENDIST rules states that all witnesses have a underling duty to SENDIST to assist them and remain impartial. Furthermore, SENDIST rules and SEND Code of Practice states transparency and having all your cards on the table in the interest of settling and or preventing disputes. So, as per ICO these communications meet the ICO Education Test/ Health Test/ Social Care Test. When I complained to ICO they allowed the LA to get away with stating that these “communications were Legal and Litigation Privilege”. Surely this is not correct and how can parents argue and or point out this is not the correct position to access data in a timely manner.

    FOIs made to the LA’s School/ Therapists in SENDIST
    The named LA school their ought to be “independent witness” , share parental FOIs made to them for the purpose of obtaining data to prepare for cases. This is a data breach and strategic conduct by the LA to restrict data and case preparation because the LA have no remit in "advising " their named school witnesses (who’s role is to remain impartial independent and assist SENDIST). ICO allowed this to be acceptable that the LA provided legal advice to their witness school in proceedings and discounted it to be education test and hence this communication has been withheld.
    Hence again as per SENDIST rules all cards on the table, was and is not met again with this conduct and position. This strategic data blocking strategy results in parents having to navigate protracted cases and any advice on the correct position would be welcomed. ICO allows this conduct to be acceptable under “public task and legal advice”.

    In this case the Service Level Agreement between the LA maintained School and the LA-clearly stated FOIs are the business of the school and the school had its own DPO third party hence why they went to the LA with my FOIs and state the advice is legal advice is a staged data restriction and concealing practice.
    Please can someone advice on what can be quoted to ensure accountability and prevent LA from using their power base to misrepresent the law (relying upon Public Task) as the basis to prepare and or interfere with their witnesses releasing information.
    Any pointers would be welcome with the addition of a data case law section in the Noddy Guide to point out the practices adopted are not acceptable by the LA and designed for purposes other than legitimate. LAs are acting unfairly and abusing their positional power base against the parent especially those unrepresented.

    MM AP

    06 Feb 2023

  • I don’t want school to attend mediation. Refusal to issue. The school see no issues, whereas my daughter is in the verge of EBSA. They have never ...

    ... supported any referrals, despite my persistent requests since reception. I finally paid for a dyslexia assessment in Y3 which identified moderate dyslexia but recommended SALT & ASD assessment. The ASD referral was refused at triage as school information said she was fine. So I paid for those assessments too. She was diagnosed Autistic & SALT highlighted language difficulties, following instructions 0.4 percentile, her other scores were 2 percentile or below apart from 1 which was 40 percentile which is how SALT thought her lack of understanding was being missed. I have seen via SAR school stating my child has no issues & that it is me. The mediation company have invited the school and the Headteacher & SENDCO are attending. I really don’t want them there but the Mediation company said they have to. I also asked for just one decision maker from the LA attend but I have been told the manager & case worker have to attend. I have also been diagnosed Autistic & I feel intimidated. I thought it was up to the parties in the mediation to request who is invited, not the mediator.

    M H

    20 Jan 2023

    Watched by 2
  • I am moving local authorities (Havering to Surrey) but am due to go to tribunal beginning of May on a refusal to issue. We now have got our address in ...

    ... Surrey but are continuing to maintain our house in Havering whilst we pursue the EHCP. I am concerned about transferring our case over to Surrey at this late stage in proceedings.
    If I do, can Surrey apply to change the tribunal dates, apply for extra time to gather new evidence or in any other way delay the process, i.e. could they argue that they need to conduct their own assessments and extend the process?
    I am also considering having a WP discussion with the head of the LA to request if she will consider issuing an EHCP with EOTAS. This is due to the fact that I know one of the reasons she agreed to my younger son’s EHCP was on the assumption that we would be leaving Havering and no longer be a financial burden to her. I could explain to her that we have not gone back on our word but that we would like to complete the EHCP process before we sell our house in Havering.
    Finally, if Havering agree to issue before tribunal, could Surrey then seek to amend the provision contained in the EHCP (I will be requesting EOTAS with a view to a SEN provision in the future) when I transfer it? Thank you for taking the time to read these questions - any input would be most gratefully received.

    Suzanne A

    31 Jan 2023

    Watched by 1
  • Can Section A only be amended at annual review? I have just successfully appealed Sections B, F and I of my child’s EHCP at Tribunal. The Tribunal ...

    ... has ordered the LA to amend Sections B and F. The LA is in the process of doing so. My question is whether the LA is precluded in law from making the amendments I have requested to Section A at the same time?

    The LA has said it can only do what the Tribunal has ordered it do it and that I will have to wait a year for an annual review to ask for amendments to Section A. My understanding is that as Section A can’t be appealed and does not come within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, there is nothing in law to preclude the LA from making amendments to Section A now - when they are working on the EHCP to amend Sections B and F. Is this right?

    I know I may be wasting my time arguing a point of principle here, but it feels an important one as the Draft EHCP was very poorly drafted and didn’t even include the full views my daughter had written out herself nor the full information she had given to the LA’s Ed Psych as part of a sentence completion activity. I therefore felt that in not including them in Section A her voice had been ignored, which was contrary to the whole principle of the Code of Practice. I have been asking for these amendments since the poorly written Draft was issued.

    The LA ignored my requests to make the amendments during the exchange of working documents and has now come back with a ‘No’ and an email saying, ‘This can be amended following a future annual review. Legally [we] must stick to the working document and what the Tribunal have ordered us to amend.’ This feels unnecessarily unreasonable but is there anything in law to support their point?

    Any advice gratefully received. Thank you.

    Cherry D

    14 Aug 2022

    Watched by 6
  • Can a claim of discrimination be made against an LA for failing to make reasonable adjustments when it does not want to pay for something? My autistic ...

    ... son has an EHCP where a provision was approved by the LA Complex Needs Panel. The LA did not follow the advice of its own panel and did not inform the parents or school of the increased provision. The LA also did not issue a new EHCP which prohibited the family from appealing to the SEND tribunal. In another example, the LA consulted with a new school but refused to pay for his provision after the school accepted my son. My understanding is that if an LA mandated x amount of hours for speech and language therapy in an EHCP and the school did not implement it this would be discrimination. Can the same be true for The LA? Can the LA be held to account for failure to support a child with SEN where the provision is considered reasonable?

    Watched by 1